This article by the wrongly named Charlemagne is published in a publication based in London for its readers who are mainly Anglophiles and Eurosceptics. This must be understood before attaching significance to Charlemagne’s writings.

Lets examine the facts. The “scandalous” cost of Strasbourg at € 180 million amounts to 36 €cents per head. The total cost of the commission and its institution are €16.60 per head. The commission costs total € 3.300 million for 500 million inhabitants.

A large number of employees of the commission are translators.

The total budget of the EU amounts to € 142.000 million or €284 per head.

The parliament agrees the budget before it can be implemented. For that reason alone it serves it democratic purpose. The Commission is simply a civil service and for the purposes of the multi national interests are the sole proposers of laws which must be without preferring one country over another.

All laws must be agreed by the individual government representatives in Council and be agreed by national parliaments.

The European Union is a work in progress and as such is not yet perfect. To make it so demands understanding of its aims and continuing improvements. To claim that it is undemocratic is to blame your country’s parliament and government.

If Europe needs more democracy it will take time, time it should be given. To put 27 countries, with various states of democratic experience, into one union cannot be achieved by the writings of Charlemagne, who has proven himself unworthy of the name.

You should speak for England and not the UK. Scotland disagrees with you and so, probably does Wales.

As I understand it, the UK voted for membership but you and many others did not bother to read up on the details. Now you find, to your obvious horror, that membership of the European Union is an ongoing commitment.

The problem the British have with the EU is that they wish that it were modeled on the UK. Yet, the EU is nowadays almost a complete copy of the German Fundamental Law. Even the whole notion of competences comes from the German model. The asymmetrical bicameralism, the mixed executive system, the strong judiciary...all German.

1) The European Union has an asymmetrical bicameral parliament composed of the European Parliament and the Council: the Council has different (and more) powers than the Parliament and it is not elected the same way or at the same time. The Commission doesn’t have legislative powers per se, it has the monopoly of legislative initiative and delegated legislatives powers of a regulatory nature.

2) The College of Commissioners is not appointed by the member states. The EP has already made member states substitute candidates. It has also toppled the whole Commission. So the Commission is nominated by one of the chambers of the "parliament" (the Council) and ratified and fired by the other chamber.

3) The European Parliament works just like any of the other parliaments in the member states. Its work is actually more transparent. In any case, most people don’t know how their national parliaments work either, democratic legitimacy doesn’t require this knowledge. It is false that in the European Parliament alliances shift from issue to issue, the studies on this issue don’t show this to be the case.

4) The UK has a rather weak parliament were the executive controls the agenda. If a strong parliament is a sign of democratic legitimacy, then the UK is not one to talk.

5) If states changed to districts in votes for the EP, there would be the risk that important national ideologies wouldn’t have any representation in the EP.

7) There is nothing particularly illegitimate about voters using EP elections to mostly punish governing parties. In a democracy the reasons for people’s votes are their own business. Actually, if it is a matter of logic, one could argue that people don’t care about voting in EP elections because they see no need to change anything in “Strasbourg”. Apart from the UK, the Parliament doesn’t have a particularly bad image, specially compared with national political institutions.

8) How can someone call for a smaller EP, when the UK and German parliaments have about as much members, yet lesser population. The EP budget isn’t that big either, specially given that its powers already resemble those of the US Congress and that it is actually working much better than the American legislature.

9) The much-maligned Lisbon Treaty has made it possible for national parliaments to veto EU legislation. The fact that it has happened (in spite of the UK´s attempts) doesn’t mean the parliaments are powerless. They can either control their governments or directly control the legislation. What else could they do?

10) The Council doesn’t work behind closed doors anymore than does any other parliamentary institution in any country in the world. It is actually easier to know what is going on in the EU Council than what is happening in many national parliaments or national Council of Ministers, much less any international organization (which the EU still is in part).

11) It is false that voters cannot throw the bums out. The EP can fire the Commission (it already has once). National electorates can fire their members of the EU Council (half of the EU governments have been toppled by the financial crisis). And the EP seems more responsive to public opinion than many national parliaments (support for financial transactions tax, skepticism as regards austerity, etc).

12) There would have to be simultaneous elections in Europe for elections to have Europe-wide policy repercussions. This is actually unnecessary, as we will see very soon with elections in France. Simultaneous elections would give smaller states more weight, but they haven’t realized this yet.

13) The EU doesn’t deal with “arcane regulatory questions”. That was the European Economic Community pre-Maastricht, pre-Schengen, pre-Amsterdam, pre-Nice, pre-Lisbon, pre-new fiscal treaties. How a publication like the Economist can make this kind of statements is baffling.

14) The question of whether there exists or not a "European polity" is philosophical, it is useless in the end. The EU or something like it would exist whether the polity exists or not. And yet the fact that the EU exists directly means that there is a polity, whether everyone cares or knows or not. These chicken or the egg discussions are pointless.

If you believe the EU is antidemocratic convince your electorate to support a national party that advocates withdrawal.

Charlemagne's mindless Europe bashing continues, much to the detriment of TE reputation. After screaming hoarse over impending demise of the Euro (which never happened), disorderly Greece default (which turned out to be a very orderly non-issue), clueless Eurocrats (who turned out to be entirely clued-in to the crisis of confidence on Eurozone sovereign debt), Charlemagne is now scraping the bottom of the barrel and coming up with...nothing.

Consider the evidence:
1. Charlemagne says European Parliament handles "arcane regulatory issues". In reality European Parliament legislates to enable a Single Market, which is the raison d'etre of the EU.
2. Charlemagne admits MEPs are elected directly by EU citizens but insists "they cannot throw the bums out". Doesn't bother to explain why not.
3. Charlemagne says EU has acquired control over national budgets, but we all know this control was nothing but preconditions for bailout. When one goes with begging bowl one expects some strings to be attached to any assistance that is forthcoming.
4. Charlemagne quotes Jack Straw but seems very unconvinced himself about what Mr. Straw says - how does a democratically elected body end up with a "democracy deficit"? and why create a new body of National MPs when such a body already exists (The Council of Ministers).

A completely vacuous article whose only valid point seems to be the expense involved in a Strasborgh seat. How trivial can TE get? High time TE puts together a fresh team for this column, a team that really understands Europe, the EU, Single Market and the Eurozone. Continued empty driven and incessant bleating that the 'EU is broken" will only turn readers off.

The gravy train as many of us have come to call this ridiculous monthly caravan from Brussels to Strasbourg and vice versa has become a demonstration of the mépris and dédain of the eurocrats for the common man more than a symbol of their capacity for squandering public funds. It functions as a pars pro toto too, this silly ritual only being the top of the ice berg. The wasteful behaviour - conspicious squander of public money - of those people was tolerated (what else can you do but swallow your frustration and feel it fester into resentment?) as long as there was 'enough' money to flaunt. But the thing with lavish spending behaviour is that the people who indulge in it never seem know where to draw the line and decide that enough is enough and that they should be grateful for their priviledged positions. In that sense they who run the Europa-show are not any different from those managers who run the giant global multinationals (let's make allowances for the exception that proves the rule, but what can he or she do but go with the flow or quit?), they too seem to grow unsatiable when it comes to money and power: "they constantly push for more power and more money; and they always want more Europe, whatever voters think. “
The argument of being caught by a "system enshrined in treaties that can be changed only by unanimity" lies in the same categorie as the mantra "too big to fail" that is used to secure the spoils and bonuses of the bankers and their cronies. As if these were supernatural phenomena that sprung into being without any human soul having something to do with it. If all those overpaid people cannot tackle such glaring sores that stare us in the face why should we trust them to sort out questions such as with Greece and the rest of the euro zone? As they've proved over and over again: they can't. They fumble and fudge and leave us to foot the bills.
We can talk about all this - and we do with much gusto - in the usual polished and polite way using the conventional concepts and figures of speech to show the world that we are well educated people proficient and well versed in the jargon of those in power but that won't impress the latter in the least, because they know: "voters cannot throw the bums out." It all amounts to performing fantasy games of bogus chess with slick words, nifty concepts and smooth phrases that do not bear upon reality in the least. Adding insult to injury the fat cats seem to love rubbing it in tauntingly like they do with this monthly gravy train as a repetitive gesture with the middle finger. Twelve times a year at the price of 180 m euro's each year. How docile and democratic we are.www.nelpuntnl.nl / www.jerry-mager.com

The voter is snookered by being four times removed from the legislative body -- voters elect national MPs, who support national heads of government, who comprise the European Council, which appoints the European Commission. It is almost impossible for the voter to "throw the bums out" because the snooker balls in question are too far removed from democratic oversight.

Most anti-Europeans, the older generation in particular I notice, primarily use the argument that 'Europe is undemocratic' and therefore is bad or a step backwards. What they really mean is that they feel uneasy about national sovereignty being threatened and will use the old 'democratic deficit' argument because it is convenient. If the EU was suddenly made into the most democratic unit that had ever been, they would be even more scared and threatened since the EU would have even greater legitimacy. For that reason, one of legitimacy, as this article argues, the EU should continue to reform its institutions. But the EU should take care over maintaining its effectiveness as it continues to reform its institutions and become more democratic (see the US for a democracy in which a democratic governance process has been hijacked, perverted and become dysfunctional - not a model of effectiveness which the EU should aspire to). The EU needs to ensure that its institutions continue to be as effective as possible as they evolve into a more democratic form.

EP filled in with members of the national parliaments? Yes a very good, common sense idea, the best placed in national elections should be also memebers of th EP.
Why having parallel parliaments? The time of French non-sensical complicated organisation has gone. Now we need functional simplicity in the EU.

An EU that was democratic would have no european council of ministers, no european commission but a sovereign european Parliament which either appoints the executive from amongst its directly elected number or who shares the balance of authority with a directly elected executive (through the exercise of legislative supremacy).

None of what we actually have in the EU has anything to do with a federal or a non federal Europe. It is all about combining executive with legislative power and placing it in the hands of the executive (national ministers and commission functionaries). This power is not exercised transparently and those who exercise it are not democratically accountable for the laws that they make.

The EU is therefore an oligarchy and the sole purpose of an oligarchy is to oust democracy. EU governance is designed to bypass domestic legislatures, domestic courts and domestic public opinion. It is no more about European integration (of which europhiles talk) than it is about abolishing the nation state (of which eurosceptics talk). It is all about achieving more power with less accountability. The executive (operating at European level) has confiscated legislative authority and empowered itself to make binding law via secret negotiation.

The Law which emerges from such conclaves has been made safe from both media scrutiny and real legislative check or challenge. National Parliaments are reduced to the role of mere electoral colleges - their only power being to select national members of the ministerial team to the supreme council.

The European Parliament is merely a showroom - a place where law that is made elsewhere is displayed.

Electorates are therefore triply reduced. They can now only vote for electors. Where they used to vote for or against their government, for or against a policy manifesto and play the decisive role in power transfer in our brave new Europe they are the subjects of a permanent government and can now only vote to change the Electoral College (which itself only nominates the ministerial element of their new European government). The bureaucratic element of their European government is nominated by the ministers themselves (how cosy is that?).

As a constitutional model therefore the EU violates every principle of the separation of powers that should apply to governing bodies in advanced societies. More importantly it is a deliberate and dedicated destroyer of the principles and practices of government by consent.

The taxes of Europe’s population may be required in this brave new European dispensation - but their opinions are certainly neither needed nor are they heeded.

Jack Straw and the British are damn right. Why do we need different politicians in national parliaments and in the EU parliament? Wouldn't it be more democratic to send representatives of national parliaments to the European parliament... once in a while when there is really something important to discuss, which is not so often? Aren't national parliamentarians much closer to European citizens?

In my humble opinion, the EU parliament consists of power seeking bureaucrats who produce a lot of hot air, cost EU tax payers too much money in times of austerity and who produce nothing useful. They are "second class" politicians who wouldn't have a chance to be voted into parliament in their respective countries. They see the EU parliament as a chance to feel important, earn a lot of money without much effort and to maybe make a career the easy way if they are lucky. Schulz is the best example for that: a narcissistic aggressive blatherer.

We must be really careful that we don't produce another insatiable bureaucratic monster in Brussels which might be unstoppable one day.

So both France and the UK have acted in deliciously bad faith over the past 30-odd years with regards to the EU. Selfishness, disregard for the common good, demagoguery, outright lies, corrupt politicians, useless press, etc.

Yep.

Got that.

So how about we look at the countries that have shown a bit more respect for the European project? The Benelux, Germany, Austria, etc. France and the UK have made themselves essentially irrelevant.

I think this title could also be applied to current UK politics, where thanks to the FPTP system the parliament does not actually reflect how people voted. Specifically, the Lib-Dems are missing 105 seats.

Yes they can. Indeed, as Charlemagne mentions, European Commissioners are appointed - by national governments democratically elected and/or answering to democratically elected parliaments.

As for the intergovernmental deicision-making process, as much as I dislike it, it is even more directly representative of national voters (too much so, actually).

No decision-making body involved in the EU materialised from thin air. Every single half-important position or appointment has been carefully vetted by national governments, never ones to let their interests take second place to federal aspirations.

Likewise, as Charlemagne says yet again, if all politics are national in a federation, then national voters have only themselves to blame for the lack of transparency and efficiency of the EU. Voters should demand that candidates, either for legislative or executive positions, make their views explicit on the EU, and how they would go about negotiating treaties and transfers of sovereignty.

Judging by the current election campaign in France, we are a long way off that goal.